Posted
by
Soulskillon Wednesday November 07, 2012 @06:23PM
from the at-least-we-didn't-ask-the-bynars dept.

concealment sends in a story at Time that goes behind the scenes with the team of data crunchers that powered many of the Obama campaign's decisions in the lead-up to the election. From the article:
"For all the praise Obama's team won in 2008 for its high-tech wizardry, its success masked a huge weakness: too many databases. Back then, volunteers making phone calls through the Obama website were working off lists that differed from the lists used by callers in the campaign office. Get-out-the-vote lists were never reconciled with fundraising lists. It was like the FBI and the CIA before 9/11: the two camps never shared data. ... So over the first 18 months, the campaign started over, creating a single massive system that could merge the information collected from pollsters, fundraisers, field workers and consumer databases as well as social-media and mobile contacts with the main Democratic voter files in the swing states. The new megafile didn't just tell the campaign how to find voters and get their attention; it also allowed the number crunchers to run tests predicting which types of people would be persuaded by certain kinds of appeals. Call lists in field offices, for instance, didn't just list names and numbers; they also ranked names in order of their persuadability, with the campaign's most important priorities first. About 75% of the determining factors were basics like age, sex, race, neighborhood and voting record. Consumer data about voters helped round out the picture. 'We could [predict] people who were going to give online. We could model people who were going to give through mail. We could model volunteers,' said one of the senior advisers about the predictive profiles built by the data. 'In the end, modeling became something way bigger for us in '12 than in '08 because it made our time more efficient.'"

Again, I'm going to reiterate my point. I don't care if they spend a billion dollars on a campaign (I prefer my privacy, thanks) on one condition:
Use your datamining to actually get government right. Figure out what everybody wants, and find a solution. If you're going to "run 66,000 campaign predictions a night", how many can you run that analyze the effects of your policies, actions, and decisions.
Cause honestly, it looks to me like government has gotten really good at screwing things up. I'd hate to lose my faith in humanity before I'm dead.

Use your datamining to actually get government right. Figure out what everybody wants, and find a solution

You know what everybody wants: lots of free loot and they want their neighbors to stop living in ways that they don't approve of (a pony is optional but appreciated by the kids). And they want all of that without paying for it themselves and without any restrictions on their own liberties.

And the solution is also simple: as a politician, you pass laws giving people free loot, pay for it by borrowing mo

I think what's scary is that it seems like there are a significant number of people that care more about their relative status in society more than they care about the baseline. IE they would rather have more than their neighbor even if it meant both standards of living were lower than they would be otherwise. I think this is what fuels some very bad decisions that our society makes.

Well, depends on which people you are talking about. For most of the other 6.7 billion people who don't live in the US, he got it right. As a member of the free world in which the POTUS claims leadership of, I want a leader who at least sounds like he finished high school. For some reason the Republicans don't seem to have too many of those.

They may well have done so. I didn't get any phone campaign phone calls this cycle, and am on the do-not-call list.

I wasn't idle, either, I donated to one of the presidential campaigns via the website. This triggered some e-mail traffic, mostly requests for further donations, but also requests for me to volunteer to make phone calls or knock on doors in a nearby swing state. Oh, and some snail-mail, they sent me a bumper-sticker.

The Left didn't win because of organization. The Left won because the Right is intolerant of the Moderate (at least the hard-core Left learned to keep quiet, for the most part), making Left looks like more accommodating to the Moderate than the Right. And Moderate don't like being push out of the circle.

Come on, Wingtards, figure it out. Is Obama Satan? Is he Marx? Hitler? He's not all of them. Get a god damn consensus.

Back on topic, I don't know what the criteria were for this database. I've never been registered Democrat. I've never donated, time or money. I've never even participated in an exit poll. But fuck me, I was getting 4 robocalls a day from them, a full snail mail box, shit taped to my door...I never even got to tell anyone in person why Obama could fuck off this cycle, but at least I got to je

There was some dude on the Daily Show who let slip that they use (in part) information purchased from reward cards, your credit score, and other commercially-purchasable demographic information such as warranty cards.

His argument was that this was doing the voter a service by enabling (the Democrats) to sell them a 'targeted message'. Jon nervously laughed at him but it was clear even he thought this wasn't a particularly comfortable revelation.

I don't get involved in politics these days, but I'm still registered as a Republican. As a consequence, I still get political calls and mail from time to time. The one thing I've noticed about how the GOP operates is that they make a lot of assumptions about what I think on various issues. It's like they cannot fathom that I might look at things a little bit differently than the party line. After reading this article, it makes me wonder if the GOP is out of touch with other voters who lean to the right.

It sounds like the Democrats have put a lot of effort into understanding their electorate.

I have the EXACT same experience. They were floored when I asked them whether their next presidential candidate had different view on redefining torture and if not, I was voting for Obama. The phone literally got so silent I could hear other conversations in the background clearly.

They were trying to work out how to get you off the phone as quick as possible without insulting you.

Unlikely. Politely ending a phone call is going to be so common for campaigners that there are going to be at least a handful of generic scripts for them to follow. What this anecdote says is that the idea was not one the particular caller had ever considered and, more importantly to the GP's point, chances are their script writers had not either.

I have the EXACT same experience. They were floored when I asked them whether their next presidential candidate had different view on redefining torture and if not, I was voting for Obama. The phone literally got so silent I could hear other conversations in the background clearly.

Listed as a Republican so they call me as well. The last time they called the individual on the other side of the phone immediately jumped into a speech about appealing Obama Care. Never asked my opinion or anything just immediately assumed I was against it because I was registered as a Republican. It became very awkward for him when I started talking about how I liked some of the provisions within the bill and that I would rather see improvements instead of a full appeal of the bill.

Unless the Republican party starts to accept that certain social/political/economic norms are changing they will continue to bleed voters.

It seems like this is just about finding out who has money, time, or social influence, and coaxing those out of people with a more focused approach. The greatest effect it has on their actual policy is to more clearly establish the boundaries of mass opinion so that they can color inside the lines so to speak and avoid controversy. It won't change the party message by much.

"Understand" is also an interesting word to use, and perhaps appropriate -- one can understand in order to better serve, or understand i

It's not that Catholics don't mostly agree that abortion is bad. It's that Catholics tend to be a lot more pragmatic as a group than their clergy would perhaps like. There are three factors here:

Catholics don't universally agree on whether it should be illegal—that is, whether their moral objection to it outweighs the need for a clear separation of church and state—whether they have the right to push what is essentially a religious belief on those who do not share that belief.

A sizable percentage of American Catholics realize that making it completely illegal has the potential to actually cost lives in some medical cases. That certainly isn't something that the Church as an institution will likely ever accept, but it is a reality that most American Catholics will concede. If your choice truly is whether to abort a fetus (or administer medical treatment that has the potential to kill the fetus) or let two people inevitably die, even most people who are against abortion in general have a hard time stomaching the latter.

Most Catholics recognize that there are more important issues that are more likely to actually have a real impact on the world. Roe v. Wade is a wedge that Republicans use to try to get votes, but in reality, they almost never actually do anything to try to change it.

That last one is crucial to understanding Catholic voters. The abortion debate is full of sound and fury, signifying nothing—all talk, no action. As long as that remains the case, it makes sense to evaluate the candidates based on issues that they might realistically act upon—health care, civil rights, care for the poor, etc.

Hear, hear! I've been a voter for over 30 years and I've seen plenty of times when we had a conservative-majority senate and congress, a conservative president, and a conservative supreme court, and yet Roe v Wade is still the law of the land. I too have become cynical on the abortion issue. The GOP doesn't want to get rid of it because it's one of those issues that gets out the vote. Really, it's the only reason Mitt Romney (the John Kerry of the ri

It seems like Wall Street's version of capitalism -- just focus on the numbers, not on making a newer widget, and we can manipulate our way to victory.

I know, you can make the argument that sending the right message to the people receptive that message will get you money, votes, whatever, but at the same time it seems cynical and manipulative. It doesn't seem like it's about developing leadership ideas that appeal to people generally and winning them over with charisma and the strength of your arguments.

Does it bother anyone.......that candidates are winning elections via data mining versus appealing to people with ideas?

It seems like Wall Street's version of capitalism -- just focus on the numbers, not on making a newer widget, and we can manipulate our way to victory.

Yes, yes it does.
But then Obama had manipulated his way to victory by making "idea" promises too, 4 years ago. He promised to undo most of questionable Bush-administration tactics, but instead he expanded on (most of) them.

So yes, they use what they can

When they had a candidate with very little record on issues, he ran on ideas that appealed to people. Never mind that he turned around and did the opposite for a shocking number of promises right away. Not "tried to follow up and failed" but "did the exac

I wouldn't say that that they won via data mining, they still appealed to people with ideas to win the election. They just used data mining to determine the best way to present the ideas in order to appeal to the most people more efficiently.

Do you know anybody who either decided to vote, or changed their vote, based on some stranger autodialing their number? I don't, and I don't imagine this sort of shift would happen often enough to actually change the election. It sounds like they used data mining to optimize campaign contributions more than anything else.

The republicans had an utterly weak candidate. Even with the economy as trashed as it is, they couldn't take the silver platter offered to them, just like the democrats couldn't capitali

What's wrong with data mining? It's effectively the same job that campaign managers have been doing for decades (or more), but now more accurately. In the 1800s, a candidate could campaign on a platform of what he thought the voters wanted to hear. Now, candidates can know the views of their constituents, and make plans and promises based on more accurate information.

Now, I'm not naive enough to think that all those promises will be kept, but it does bode well that the elected officials have a pretty accurate model of their constituents, should they actually decide to refer to it.

Absolutely nothing. From my understanding the Obama campaign didn't go to areas that were red and tried to convince them to vote blue. Instead they went to areas that were already blue and used the information that was being data mined to find those that weren't voting. I would assume its easier to convince someone to vote then it is to switch political parties.

It's easier to manipulate perception than to manipulate reality; it's easier to make people believe you're going to or already have fixed the problem than it is to actually work on the problem itself. The sad sad outrageous part is that they then spend (a large integer) times the amount of money on manipulating perception than the amount of money that they might have needed to address the problem.

The "focus on the numbers" and "fix the perception so we look like we're winning" is the same as:

First, it was specifically aimed at groups of people and could not predict actions of an individual. The campaign mining is actually about doing by-individual analysis to see what kind of plea/solicitation they may respond to best.

Second, the population should remain ignorant of the application of psychohistory rules or they may be affected by such knowledge. And we clearly know about the dat

... the data crunchers with the help of the spying on Americans and MSM entertainment control were able to figure out exactly how to manipulate many things to achieve the goal of what they were hired to do. To cause the voters to believe they actually voted the way it was said to have.

Fact is voter turnout was the lowest it has been at least as far back as prior to 1948 election perhaps further back.Obama trailed at roughly under 1 million for most of the tally and then was approx 1.5 million behind Romney

... the data crunchers with the help of the spying on Americans and MSM entertainment control were able to figure out exactly how to manipulate many things to achieve the goal of what they were hired to do. To cause the voters to believe they actually voted the way it was said to have.

Fact is voter turnout was the lowest it has been at least as far back as prior to 1948 election perhaps further back.Obama trailed at roughly under 1 million for most of the tally and then was approx 1.5 million behind Romney in popular vote when declared the winner.

So with less that 50% of eligible voters voting.....the people did not elect anyone. But hey it made for a sports style event with teh last minute tally comeback.

This was not a sports event!

Given the political bias I have seen on slashdot.... I do expect this to be moderated troll.... But that not like our election voting.... is it?

So what are you saying? A non-voter should count as a Romney voter? Obama lost?

Behind in the popular vote for most of the tally... sure, because the west coast has an very high population, and every state in the coast votes for the Democrats more often than not. Therefore, the popular vote will always look to favor the republican candidate, barring an absolute Dem. landslide that we've not seen in our lifetimes.

And really, complaining about a low turnout when most elections have a winner-take-all approach is rather naive. If a race is is not in a dead heat, chances that a presidential

One of their callers let it slip what my "ranking" was. For some reason they think I'm a strong democrat. I'm not sure what they think that means because if the Republicans would ever get their act together and field a Strong Moderate Republican like Powell then I'd vote Republican. Instead they've taken the last decade purging out moderates and acting crazy. Someone failed to consolidate those database though. If they had done it right then they would know they called my home phone, and cell phone. You only have to confirm that I'm voting once, maybe twice. After that I ether am voting or I've been Joshing you. But no, I got about 13 calls from them. Each campaign needs to share data so I don't get inundated by the local legislature, house and presidential campaign. I can't imagine what actual battle ground states actually got since I'm in an area where the winner could have been called a year before the election.

Voting record? I thought we had secret ballots in this country and that no one is supposed to have access to individual voters' voting records? Do they mean simply registration records and if they voted in a particular election?

And it seemed worrisome that the government would tabulate this infomation on us so they outlawed it; then they found the loophole that while the gov't couldn't compile the data, private companies could, and then the gov't can look at the private companies' data and still proclaim they never broke the law. "Brave New World", indeed...

Voting record? I thought we had secret ballots in this country and that no one is supposed to have access to individual voters' voting records? Do they mean simply registration records and if they voted in a particular election?

No, they meant your actual votes.

Ever notice, when you walk up to the poll worker, how they scan your ID, write a number next to your name in their little book, then write the same number on the top of your ballot?

It's the record of whether or not you voted, which is public information. (Which party you declare when you register, and whether you're registered, is also public information.)

One of the things they talk about in TFA (I know, I know) is that an important part of their model is figuring out whether people are likely to vote and, for those who aren't but could be convinced, what strategy will convince them to vote. Probably your past history of whether you've voted is a component in that analysis.

Thanks for your answer. I did read the FA; I must have missed that point. I didn't realize that voter registries were public information. Are you required to give your phone-number? That must be how people get all of the robo-call spams for elections...

.

Can you refuse to give a phone number when you register? (I'm not registered; I'm not old enough yet. My parents tend to think that they're always required to give out stuff like their own email and phone numbers; they pretty much do it at almost eve

And this doesn't frighten ANY of the privacy advocates here on slashdot? Were this any other government organization people would be screaming to the hills, so why is Obama given a free pass for this sort of privacy incursions?

It simply makes me sigh and wonder again when The American People[tm] will come to its senses and get themselves a voting system that's less paralysable by a mere two parties and effectively disenfranchises just a hair short of half the voters.

But since the message of the founding fathers has been lost in the process of elevating them to sainthood (or rather, by commercialising their vague memory), the answer is probably "never".

Which makes the claims of this country being a democracy (or a republic, or both), all the more bitter.

Yes, we Americans should get a much more logical political system, like the British. Maybe if we had a House of Lords and a royal family, we'd finally enter the 18th century.

The Queen has a very limited constitutional role that very seldom comes into play. If she did anything outrageous it'd be the end of the monarchy's popularity and the end of the monarchy (the Prime Minister can demand an abdication), so she has to follow the public mood.

The House of Lords can only delay legislation and send it back to the Commons, and its track record of providing corrective feedback and constructive improvements to bills is actually pretty good.

House of Commons Select Committees scrutinize every bit of legislation line-by-line before it can proceed. Is there a similar system in the US Capitol or is it true that most of the people voting on bills in the house don't actually read them?

Members of the British cabinet have to be elected to Parliament, not simply appointed. Nobody gets to be Prime Minister without years of fighting his (or her) way to the front benches, so whoever makes it to the front has a pretty good idea of how the system works by the time they get there.

Since the executive branch is taken from the legislative branch, a government with a decent sized mandate can actually get stuff done. And then of course there's Prime Minister's questions every Wednesday, where the PM gets a good solid grilling. Could you have imagined Dubya surviving for five minutes in a pit like that?

Since the head of state (the monarch) is a different person from the executive leader of the country (the Prime Minister) then people can honour the head of state and be as patriotic as they like while treating their political leaders with utter contempt and ousting them when they put a foot wrong. None of this "don't dare criticise the President in a time of war" nonsense. And if the government really does screw up badly enough then a vote of confidence in the Commons can force an election at any time, no staring at the clock waiting for a 4-year term to finish. And if you do happen to get a decent PM then he (or she) gets to stay in office for as long as the people are content for that government to remain, not be ousted at the end of an arbitrary term limit.

The parliamentary system isn't perfect (what system is?) but it sure as shit has a lot going for it. And since the UK had a female PM before a lot of people on/. were born, maybe you should hold your fire on gloating about how progressive the US system is until Hillary gets back into the White House, this time as President.

Are you saying that there aren't local governments in the UK? Because that's not correct in the slightest.

Or are claiming that the landmass of a nation determines when it can be successful as a monarchy? Because Canada is larger than the US, and functions well enough with a queen and parliamentary system very similar to the UK.

Or are you claiming that it's population size that determines if a monarchy could work as a form of government? Claiming it doesn't scale with population is as ridiculous as claiming that counting ballots by hand doesn't scale in large populations -- the arguments just make no sense.

Because the monarch plays a limited but important role in government. It is her job to appoint a Prime Minister (not always trivial in a hung parliament); and, it's her decision whether to call an election, or to appoint a new PM from the current Commons should the government fall on a confidence motion.

You could eliminate the monarch...but then you'd just need to replace her with someone else who would do those jobs (call that person a president, chancellor, or whatever else you like). And what have you ga

The Royal Family is always under scrutiny if it does try to influence policies. At the moment the Prince of Wales is being put under a mganifying glass because of his lobbying for his numerous social causes. The Queen only comes into play when things have gone terribly wrong. What a King/Queen can and can't do has been determined under the Stuarts(one got his head lobbed off, the other had to flee from an orange).

And that was quite some time ago. Just to boggle the mind for a bit Edward Longshanks had to call in a parliament to raise taxes for his wars. That's the guy you might know from that Braveheart movie that was so popular a couple of years ago. I repeat: Edward the First of England, one of the most autocratic monarchs the country ever saw, had to form a parliament to get things done. And he wasn't the first who had to do just that. "No taxation without representation" is a very old, very English principle.

Simon de Montfort, who had ousted Edward's daddy for a year or so, even went so far to have non-nobles and fat cats sit in his parliament. Not entirely democratic but at least somewhat elected. And that was mid-13th century. There's a reason why he has a spot on a wall in the US House of Representatives dedicated to him. Stuff like that tends to linger. And once you went there you can't go back.

Well, you'll have to be fair. With the installation of Obamacare they have entered the 19th century. The pink leftie Otto von Bismarck introduced Mandatory Health Insurance for low incomes and the arch-communist Kaiser Wilhelm the First smiled on it.

Yes, we Americans should get a much more logical political system, like the British. Maybe if we had a House of Lords and a royal family, we'd finally enter the 18th century.

We have one. With the exception of Martin van Buren, the Presidents are decended from the Broom family (see Plantagenet). The cited King is John Lackland (Johan sans terre) who signed the big paper (see Magna Carta). His dad Richard the First (see Lionheart) was ransomed for what would be 3 billion in today's bucks (see king's ransom).

Not really -- we can keep our constitutional system of representation, and just change how we run elections on a state-by-state basis, such as by adopting instant run-off voting or proportional representation of electors (such as Nebraska & Maine do).

You are correct that there is no incentive to do such a thing by the 2 parties currently in power, however.

It actually disenfranchises _more_ than half of the voters. Take California in this election:Obama: 5573450 Romney: 3635571None of the 3.63 million votes for Romney counted, and 1937878 of Obama's didn't contribute to the election.Therefore, 5573449 votes, 60.5%, in California didn't count for anything.

That's pretty twisted logic you have going there (or possibly an unorthodox definition of "disenfranchised"), taken to it's logical conclusion the only vote that counts is the single ballot that gets someone over the line. Truth is all the votes counted, the Rommney total was simply insufficient and the Obama total was more than required. US domestic politics has ( in my lifetime) always been highly polarised, which is kind of odd given the diverse sub-cultures found in the different states/regions, simply tweeking the election rules isn't going to change that cultural paradox.

The 1937878 are a mathematical artifact. Even if 1937878 votes were superfluous (they're not, because they prevented endless court battles if the outcome had been in doubt), they didn't get disenfranchised. The guy they voted for won.

You're right on the rest, more or less, if you use the "deprived of power" definition rather than "right to vote" (which they clearly used).

But there's no way around that, electoral college or not, because there is only one Oval Office. You can only put one guy into it, and any

It simply makes me sigh and wonder again when The American People[tm] will come to its senses and get themselves a voting system that's less paralysable by a mere two parties and effectively disenfranchises just a hair short of half the voters.

Your post is very insightful. Really.

Please explain how "The American People" can alter the current voting system, that is held in a stranglehold by an elite set of politicians who only work to re-elect themselves, in a non-violent manner. Provide specific, actionable examples.

The fact that people actually modded your snarky, hollow, and nameless post up says more about the public's ability to evaluate content than anything you just typed.

Plus he seemed to have lost a huge amount of the support he had in 2008.

Maybe that's because he had done a 180 degree turn on most of his promises? The ones that got that huge amount of support in 2008? Campaigning on "change and hope" was no longer possible, since we now have 4 years of actual record.

a win is a win... but looking at it objectively a sigh of relief is more appropriate than a cry of victory.

Republicans had a chance, but they needed a stronger candidate. Why is it so hard to find one strong candidate? I mean, look at who Romney was competing against at the end -- Gingrich, McCain, Santorum...

First off, Obama did what he could with a Republican party that wanted nothing more than for him to lose his second term. Dont believe me? They even said this.
Secondly, the Republican party is full of nut jobs and puppets. The last few candidates that the Republicans presented were such big shills (including Bush), that you could clearly see the strings that were being pulled to make them talk.
Third, stop lying to make the Republican party look good. We have something now called the internet, and despite the large amount of false data out there, the real data (and recordings) remain.
Finally, Stop taking the USA citizens for rubes. We are smart, educated, and intelligent, something the Republican Party has feared for years. We believe that even though people can and given the chance, will pull up their bootstraps, sometimes they need help to get started. Not everyone has an extended family, a rich uncle, or someone who knows the right people to get us started. Society is not socialism, it is caring about your neighbors and helping out. THis includes neighbors I dont know and will never meet. I sanction my government to help those that need help, and try its best to find those that would work this to their own personal benefit.

Stop taking the USA citizens for rubes. We are smart, educated, and intelligent, something the Republican Party has feared for years.

Well said, I agree with Christopher Hicthens who thought putting Palin up for VP was a genuine insult to intelligence of "the people". Isn't the conservative side of politics supposed to shun shallow air-heads? Are they not supposed to hang on to established institutions rather than openly call for their abolishment? Was Nixon a commie because he didn't veto the clean air act? Was reagan a wetermellon becuse he pushed for and obtained an international cap and trade treaty for sulphur emissions which has been credited with significantly reducing the threat from acid rain?

Having grown up in the 60-70's the Tea Party's sucessful hijacking of the conservative brand name has left me speechless, how border line support for anarchy and a total disregard for well-established facts could be interpreted as 'conservative' is beyond me? Go back pre-911 and have a look at the senior republicans, where are the moderate right wingers in today's line up? - Oh wait....I think I get it now.....you guys just elected a moderate conservative as president, well done!;)

It truly is hilarious. The GOP moved so far to the right that they made Obama look like a leftie. I grew up in the 70ies and 80ies and for the past 10-15 years I have been wondering what on earth is going on with them? A year ago they would have taken the whole country by a landslide. Then they started campaigning.

Important distinction - "A party that wanted for him to lose" vs "A party that wanted nothing more than for him to lose".

When "make sure the other guy loses" is the over-riding objective, above any other goal, you stop doing things that would make sense if you wanted to get anything done, because getting things done might make the other guy look good. You stop doing things that would make sense to advance your own (original) agenda, where it overlaps with the other guy, because agreeing with the other guy makes him look good and might allow him to achieve something.

It turns everything into a game of tribal warfare - no compromise, no co-operation, just blind hate and contrarian obstruction. Being anything so long as it puts the other guy down or makes his life difficult. That's pretty much the impression I get of a good chunk of the republican party for the last 4 years, and thankfully it hasn't proved to be a winning strategy. If all you had to do to win an election was to block everything the incumbent tries to do (then lambast him for never doing anything), then the USA would be stuck fruitlessly spinning its gears forever.

Maybe now that's been shown to be a dud they'll start working for the common good of the people being governed, rather than treating ideas (and laws) as soldiers in an imaginary war. Maybe. That is perhaps optimistic though; equally likely they double down on the obstructionist crap, especially given how much the far right has supplanted the centre right.

Sadly, the short term problem is that obstructionism will at least appear to work in the next 2 years. 2 years from now, the voters who were willing to wait 4 - 6 hours in line to vote for Obama won't be willing to stick it out for a midterm. And one guess on the social groups that had to wait 4 hours to vote. The Democrats will lose many of their gains in the last election and the hardline (Tea Party) Republicans will conclude that their no surrender tactics are working and further that the reason they lost 2012 is because the party selected a wishy-washy conservative in Romney.

I am sad to say my prediction is very minimal compromise in the short term and further purges of moderates, especially moderate Republicans, for the next 4 years. Eventually the Republicans will have to change course, they just can’t/won’t that soon.

I am sad to say my prediction is very minimal compromise in the short term and further purges of moderates, especially moderate Republicans, for the next 4 years. Eventually the Republicans will have to change course, they just can’t/won’t that soon.

For the sake of our country I sincerely hope your prediction is not our future. As a moderate Republican I will have no choice but to keep voting for Democrates, straight down the ballot. I will keep on doing this until more Republican leaders emerges (and survives). I think many moderates (Republican or Democrats) in this country share my point of view.

I predict differently. If the Republicans continue to embrace the Tea Party loonies then they will be making way for Democrat dominance.

That strategy has lost them the election. And they will come to the same conclusion. The shift to the right will stop or the GOP is done for a long time. I don't really understand what they did in the primaries. The ultra-right will vote GOP anyway and you need to capture the moderates who can either vote Dem or GOP based on current policies they most identify with. If th

Obama has not exactly reached across the aisle either. The affordable healthcare law was not developed in committee, because Republicans could see it and make amendments. The Democrats choose to develop the law outside of usual process, because they knew they did not need a Republican vote to pass it. This is probably the most partisan thing I have seen in my lifetime.

I am not exactly disagreeing with you on any particular point but I would say that your view is perhaps overly simplistic. The fact is Obama got exactly two things of any consequence done in his first term, and incidentally those are the two things that if you actually poll the public you still see a near 50/50 split on if they were good or bad. During the first two years he had a majority in both houses. The fact that more did not happen in that period can not reasonably blamed on GOP obstructionism. I

"small fringe" is sadly not, to my mind, a plausible interpretation of the evidence

When you look at many votes on questions touched on by the theocrats, it's pretty clear that they enjoy substantial support from large segments and often majorities of the GOP electorate.

I'm very sorry that the somewhat more sensible Republican party of the past is no longer with us. But that's the case, and it's time for people who supported a more sensible GOP to either figure out a way of more effectively persuading people to your view (because the theocrats are winning that war, despite last night's results), or, alternatively, get themselves a more sensible party of their own.

Because there are few rational members of that party left. The Republican party caters to the extreme right, just watch the primaries, it was a contest of who is the craziest. The Republican party is dead and it time for a third party to emerge.

Republicans had a chance, but they needed a stronger candidate. Why is it so hard to find one strong candidate? I mean, look at who Romney was competing against at the end -- Gingrich, McCain, Santorum...

Republican candidate issues can (mostly) be placed at the feet of the Republican party. The only person who could possibly fit through their obstacle course was Romney, only because he was the best in changing positions (a/k/a outright lying about what he really was).

Because they think they need to be more conservative, more hard-line in order to appeal to the religious nuts and hard-core racist wingnuts. Seriously.

If there were a party that was fiscally conservative but didn't hate minorities and spout off bugfuck insane Ayn Rand nonsense they would probably do well.

A republican candidate who didn't repudiate science, go all Jesusy at the drop of a hat, and who was willing to say that fixating on restricting the rights of a tiny (but potent) minority was a waste of fuc

Surely you weren't persuaded by the media hype about how close the race is. It has never been close. Obama has had a huge advantage in the electoral college from the get-go. And the Romney campaign never had the ground organization in the battleground states that would be required to be a serious contender.

In fact, it almost looks like the Republicans threw the race on purpose. Romney is not the kind of candidate who would have a great chance of beating Obama in this climate--he epitomizes everything that people dislike about the Republican party, and plays into the Democrat characterization of the GOP as the party for the rich, by the rich.

In fact, there hasn't really been a strong candidate put up against an incumbent President since Reagan beat Carter. Clinton was not expected to win--but Perot's entering the race spoiled expectations.

Clinton was not expected to win--but Perot's entering the race spoiled expectations.

Maybe it was different in the swing states, but in Texas, everyone voting for Perot I talked to would have otherwise have voted for Clinton. On the Republican scale, Perot is a left-wing nutjob. He wanted fiscal responsibility, something Clinton actually gave us (even if the Republicans assert it was only luck that he sat on a boom that busted under Bush). He also wasn't nearly interested enough in the bedroom habits of people to be a "good Republican."

Yes, only squeaked by. Almost 120 million people voted. If around 130,000 of those - ~50K in VA, ~55K in OH, and ~25K in Florida - had switched to Romney, the outcome would have been a Romney presidency. That's less than 1.5% of VA, less than 1.1% of OH, less than 0.4% of FL, and less than 0.011% of the national vote.

Obonga is gonna bankrupt this nation and let the mud races defile white women as your slavery reparations payment, too. Now that he has now political accountability you will see his true colors shine through.

Well, if the alternative is having the nation led by the people a bigoted simpleton like yourself would vote for, I'd say we came out ahead.